Storry v Business Licensing Authority (No 3)

The case of Storry v Business Licensing Authority (No 3) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the applicant, Storry, and the respondent, the Business Licensing Authority. The crux of the matter pertained to an order for costs, specifically whether the respondent, having been the successful party in the proceedings, was entitled to an order for costs from the applicant. The respondent did not make an application for costs during the proceedings.

The legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the respondent, despite the absence of an application from the respondent for such an order. This raised questions about the court's discretion in ordering costs and the procedural obligations of parties when seeking costs in the context of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and the principle that costs should generally follow the event. It was noted that the respondent had not made an application for costs, which is typically a prerequisite for such an order. The court held that, in the absence of an application, it was not appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the respondent. The court exercised its discretion and determined that there should be no order as to costs. The reasoning was based on the procedural requirements set out in the Federal Court Rules 2011 and the lack of a formal application for costs from the successful party.